Errant Writing on Vintage Baseball Cards.....

[Leon]

Not wanting to hijack the very good thread about the Star BBC CDV, but related to some comments, I want to approach the subject of erasing writing on our cards. My personal thought is that it is ok to take off whatever wasn't on the card originally, if done so in a very organic manner ie.. water and Q tip. However there are many times I am a strong proponent of leaving them. This E136 Zeenut of Weaver came from a long ago, and quite well known PCL collector's collection. His first name "Alfred" is written on many of our old PCL cards. He must have had a heck of a collection. This card was recently sold from my collection and was raw (I believe) until it was sold. But to me the writing enhances this card and was left on it....Thoughts?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Leon

... But to me the writing enhances this card and was left on it....Thoughts?

I agree in this case. As with most blank-back cards, I have much less of a problem with writing on the back than printed-back cards. I think it's because blank-back cards tend to draw actual comments/details about the people, stats, how the owner felt, or time in which they played. In these cases, they aren't just 'stray' markings or other scribble.

I mean, c'mon. How can someone not appreciate the writing on the back of these Beatles cards?

[Stonepony]

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=173771

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=173771

There is almost nothing we haven't chatted about before. However we do have 1500+ new members since that thread was started, so even old topics can be reviewed and discussed.
Sometimes I get to reading links posted, as that one, and I end up reading something for much longer than I intended. I am not sure if that is good or bad but am leaning towards the latter....

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Leon

There is almost nothing we haven't chatted about before. However we do have 1500+ new members since that thread was started, so even old topics can be reviewed and discussed.
Sometimes I get to reading links posted, as that one, and I end up reading something for much longer than I intended. I am not sure if that is good or bad but am leaning towards the latter....

I was just guiding folks to some nice examples

[mattsey9]

I love this card because it has writing on it, not in spite of it. Somebody used it as a toy and not a keepsake. Saved me a few shekels 81 years later as well...

[Cozumeleno]

Most of the time I would probably say that the writing doesn't enhance the card. An exception might be something cool related to that time period (i.e. a mention of a President, a date, etc.). Just writing like numbers and scribbling? Not really an enhancement in my eyes.

But I will say that, as largely a collector of low- and mid-grade cards, it generally doesn't bother me as long as the price reflects that of a low-grade card.

Scribble from topps Sorry for being more recent

[pokerplyr80]

Aside from a player's autograph I haven't seen writing on a card that I have felt enhanced it. If it was something unique I can see how it would be possible.

I do not have a problem with a collector removing writing or glue or anything that was not on the card originally.

[swarmee]

Love the backs of those Beatles cards. The Bob Gibson is just defacing it, not enhancing. I sold a Lew Alcindor rookie that had his name scratched out and relabeled "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" and have seen a lot of teams scratched out on vintage cards with the new team written over it.
Definitely the cards owned by the early founders of the sports card collecting cadre (Burdick et al) are enhanced by the writing on the backs, IMO. Plus the proofs submitted to the Patent Office have been defaced but improved.